Reagan substantially increased the tax burden of corporations by cutting loopholes (especially hiding money overseas, even though he cut the top rate-

"Among other things, Reagan’s tax act curbed offshore corporate profit shifting, leasing tax shelters and numerous industry-specific tax breaks, and despite a reduction in the statutory corporate tax rate, increased corporate tax payments by 34 percent. Reagan also equalized the personal income tax treatment of wages and realized capital gains, and he made the tax system more progressive overall."

But then, of course:

"Lobbyists for corporations and wealthy individuals didn’t give up after 1986. They worked hard to regain and expand the tax subsidies that Reagan had taken away.

Much was undone during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, he notes: both the Democrats and the Republicans were at serious fault.

"By the early 2000s, corporate subsidies had risen so much that the average effective U.S. federal corporate tax rate paid by America’s largest and most profitable corporations on their U.S. profits had fallen to only 18.4 percent — barely over half the 35 percent statutory rate. 1 Those tax subsidies have grown even larger since then."
~ http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/...timony-to.html

It was McIntyre's research that woke Ronald Reagan up-

"In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. — a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman — was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

“I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan’s 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

That pendulum began to swing back in the late 1990s. G.E. and other financial services firms won a change in tax law that would allow multinationals to avoid taxes on some kinds of banking and insurance income. The change meant that if G.E. financed the sale of a jet engine or generator in Ireland, for example, the company would no longer have to pay American tax on the interest income as long as the profits remained offshore."
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...pagewanted=all

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Reagan substantially increased the tax burden of corporations by cutting loopholes (especially hiding money overseas, even though he cut the top rate-

"Among other things, Reagans tax act curbed offshore corporate profit shifting, leasing tax shelters and numerous industry-specific tax breaks, and despite a reduction in the statutory corporate tax rate, increased corporate tax payments by 34 percent. Reagan also equalized the personal income tax treatment of wages and realized capital gains, and he made the tax system more progressive overall."

But then, of course:

"Lobbyists for corporations and wealthy individuals didnt give up after 1986. They worked hard to regain and expand the tax subsidies that Reagan had taken away.

Much was undone during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, he notes: both the Democrats and the Republicans were at serious fault.

"By the early 2000s, corporate subsidies had risen so much that the average effective U.S. federal corporate tax rate paid by Americas largest and most profitable corporations on their U.S. profits had fallen to only 18.4 percent barely over half the 35 percent statutory rate. 1 Those tax subsidies have grown even larger since then."
~ http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/...timony-to.html

It was McIntyre's research that woke Ronald Reagan up-

"In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

I didnt realize things had gotten that far out of line, Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regans 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.

That pendulum began to swing back in the late 1990s. G.E. and other financial services firms won a change in tax law that would allow multinationals to avoid taxes on some kinds of banking and insurance income. The change meant that if G.E. financed the sale of a jet engine or generator in Ireland, for example, the company would no longer have to pay American tax on the interest income as long as the profits remained offshore."
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...pagewanted=all

Do we really need to re-litigate Reagan?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

And that's exactly what the Buffett Rule is doing. It's not actually raising the income tax rate of the rich whom it affects. It's closing loopholes that allow them to pay less in effective tax than everybody else.

And that's exactly what the Buffett Rule is doing. It's not actually raising the income tax rate of the rich whom it affects. It's closing loopholes that allow them to pay less in effective tax than everybody else.

All you're doing is regurgitating the talking point ("closing loopholes").

For years, Warren Buffett has been claiming that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Recently, President Obama has taken that claim and run with it. I don’t know Mr. Buffett’s particular tax situation, but I do know that his claim as a general matter is bogus.

Let’s look at some numbers. The first chart shows IRS data for income tax rates by income group for 2009. These are average effective tax rates, calculated as income taxes paid divided by adjusted gross income (AGI). The chart shows that taxpayers with incomes above $500,000 had tax rates averaging about 25 percent. Middle-income taxpayers had tax rates of half of that or less. A few years ago, Buffett claimed that his secretary earned $60,000 and paid a 30 percent tax rate. But looking just at income taxes, that seems way off. (Note that this data doesn’t include the “refundable” portion of tax credits, which wipes out taxes for many people at the bottom end).

Perhaps Buffett was referring to the fact that his secretary pays a heavy load of payroll taxes in addition to income taxes. But when you look at data which includes all federal taxes, the system is still highly graduated with much higher rates at the top end.

Chart 2 shows CBO data for 2007 on average effective tax rates, including essentially all federal taxes—individual income, corporate income, payroll, and excise. Buffett’s secretary would fit into the fourth group in the chart, where the average tax rate was 17.4 percent. So if she is really paying 30 percent, then Buffett needs to show her some of his tax-reduction tricks. Note in the chart that Buffett’s peers in the top 1 percent paid an average rate of 29.5 percent, which is double the rate paid by middle-income taxpayers.

In 2007, Buffett said that he paid a 17.7 percent tax rate. Alan Reynolds notes that Buffett earns large amounts of capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum federal rate of 15 percent. People in the top income groups do report a lot of capital gains, which reduces their overall effective tax rate. However, capital gains are included in chart 1, above, and you can see that the top income groups still pay much higher tax rates than others on average. One reason is that a large amount of income at the top is small business income, which is hit by ordinary income tax rates of up to 35 percent.

You have to go to the extreme top end of the income spectrum in order for capital gains realizations to really push down overall effective tax rates. The IRS publishes data for the 400 highest-income taxpayers. For these taxpayers, the average effective income tax rate in 2008 was 18.1 percent.

Since the beginning of the income tax, we have nearly always had special treatment of capital gains for some very good reasons, as I discuss here. I point out that virtually all high-income nations recognize that capital gains are different and that special rules are needed. A number of OECD nations have long-term capital gains tax rates of zero, including New Zealand and the Netherlands.

Another important aspect to this debate regards the link between capital gains and dynamism in the economy and dynamism in tax payments. The political left makes it seem as if there were a permanent aristocracy at the top end of the income spectrum in America. However, IRS data show the exact opposite—the top 400 are a highly dynamic group. Notice first in IRS Table 1 that 57 percent of AGI for these taxpayers is capital gains. That is a key reason why the people in this group are constantly changing—large capital gains realizations are occasional events that rocket people to the top of the AGI heap. One example is when an entrepreneur sells her successful and longstanding business and retires.

The last table in the IRS document reveals the dynamism. The IRS traced the identities of all taxpayers who showed up in the top 400 anytime between 1992 and 2008. The IRS found that there were a huge 3,672 different taxpayers who appeared during that timeframe. Of these 3,672, fully 73 percent only appeared once in the top 400! And 85 percent appeared only once or twice.

So at the top end of our capitalist system is a continual generation of new wealth and new wealthy people, and that dynamism reflects the still-energetic and free-wheeling nature of our economy.

Inspired by Warren Buffett’s frequent claims that he pays federal taxes at a lower rate that his secretary, President Obama yesterday proposed a new tax hike on millionaires called the “Buffett Rule” as part of his deficit-reduction plan.

“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett,” the president declared. “There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.”

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, “There’s one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule is false,” and it referred to Buffett’s claims that CEOs pay lower tax rates than their secretaries as “Omaha hokum.” AEI’s Alan Viard explains here that the Obama administration is basing its tax proposal and the Buffett Rule on a factual statement that doesn’t hold up. Even the Associated Press finally got around to fact-checking the Oracle of Omaha’s math and reported that “President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.”

Federal tax data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Congressional Budget Office presented in the table and chart below confirm that the “Buffett Rule” really is “Omaha Hokum”:

The table above summarizes average federal income tax rates (as a share of taxable income) paid in 2009 by individuals at income levels from $10,000 to $10 million (IRS data here). A secretary earning $50,000 would be paying an average federal tax rate of about 11 percent, compared to the 26.3 percent tax rate on the “super-rich” earning $10 million or more. Any CEO earning income above $200,000 would be paying federal income taxes at a rate of at least 24.6 percent, or more than twice the rate of a secretary earning $50,000.

To be fair, in Buffett’s frequently cited New York Times editorial in August, he also included payroll taxes when he claimed that his 17.4 percent tax rate was far below the 36 percent average rate for the 20 employees in his office. The IRS only provides tax data for federal income taxes, but the Congressional Budget Office reports average tax rates by income groups for all federal taxes including payroll taxes, and those data are displayed below for 2007 (the most recent year available).

Even when including payroll taxes, the claims by Buffet and Obama that secretaries pay higher tax rates than CEOs are not consistent with the factual evidence. For the CEOs in the top 1 percent earning an average of almost $2 million annually, they are paying an average federal tax rate of 29.5 percent, which is more than twice the tax rate of those in the middle income quintile earning an average of $64,500.

Bottom Line: The data in the table and chart above show that the U.S. federal income tax system is already highly progressive (as it’s intended to be, and not regressive as Buffett and Obama seem to imply)—higher income groups do pay taxes at a higher rate as a share of their income than lower income groups, and that applies even if we include payroll taxes. Obama has claimed that raising taxes on the rich is “not class warfare, it’s math.” Unfortunately, the math behind the “Buffett Rule” just doesn’t add up. Fortunately, some serious fact-checking has finally begun to expose the “Omaha Hokum.”

What BR said is true. This kind of conjecture (that Reagan didn't do these things) is the misinformation I'm talking about.

Yes, because you're clearly more informed than the rest of us hicks. We blindly follow the myth of Reagan the conservative. You're the only sane one here.

Wait...or maybe I'm laughing because while Reagan did many of the things you and BR claim (raising taxes in some cases), painting him as less than a conservative is bogus and absurd. In fact, so is claiming that Reagan approving the closing of loopholes in 1986 is equivalent to what Obama is proposing now, especially with respect to the circumstances.

Yeah. The second one.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yeah, "facts" that lump corporate profits in with personal profits to make an illogical point? "Facts" that claim tax levels according to "all" income, but ignore capital gains (apparently)? "Facts" that ignore the higher sales tax burden of the middle class? Yeah, those facts.

Yeah, "facts" that lump corporate profits in with personal profits to make an illogical point? "Facts" that claim tax levels according to "all" income, but ignore capital gains (apparently)? "Facts" that ignore the higher sales tax burden of the middle class? Yeah, those facts.

You cannot see the forest for the trees.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

In 2007, the top 10% of Americans held 70% of America's wealth and their wealth has been increasing at a faster rate than the bottom 90%, which means their income is more than 70%. You fucking better bet that they deserve to pay at least 70% of America's taxes. Now deduct a standard cost of living from income, and tell me what's left.

In 2007, the top 10% of Americans held 70% of America's wealth and their wealth has been increasing at a faster rate than the bottom 90%, which means their income is more than 70%. You fucking better bet that they deserve to pay at least 70% of America's taxes. Now deduct a standard cost of living from income, and tell me what's left.

Wealth and income are not the same thing. Your parents HOPEFULLY have equity in their home. That equity is part of their wealth. Should they honestly be forced to sell off or mortgage away a part of that value each year to give it to the government as taxes?

Most wealth is not liquid. The only way to tax it is to make it liquid. Please explain how you justify screwing over so many people because they are "wealthy" by that measure.

The reason the wealth at the top is increasing faster than the bottom is because subsidizing a crappy, ignorant, single parent, low education lifestyle doesn't increase it's earnings potential and likewise global trade makes doubly sure it is unprofitable.

Yeah, "facts" that lump corporate profits in with personal profits to make an illogical point? "Facts" that claim tax levels according to "all" income, but ignore capital gains (apparently)? "Facts" that ignore the higher sales tax burden of the middle class? Yeah, those facts.

Sort of like how you ignore the corporate tax paid on dividends issues to guys like Buffet and then note the personal income tax rate he pays on them and only count that?

Wealth and income are not the same thing. Your parents HOPEFULLY have equity in their home. That equity is part of their wealth. Should they honestly be forced to sell off or mortgage away a part of that value each year to give it to the government as taxes?

Most wealth is not liquid. The only way to tax it is to make it liquid. Please explain how you justify screwing over so many people because they are "wealthy" by that measure.

The reason the wealth at the top is increasing faster than the bottom is because subsidizing a crappy, ignorant, single parent, low education lifestyle doesn't increase it's earnings potential and likewise global trade makes doubly sure it is unprofitable.

You didn't even read what I wrote. Change in wealth (when offset by inflation) is income. The wealth of the wealthy has been increasing much more than the wealth of the middle class. Therefore their income is higher, in a greater proportion than their wealth.

You didn't even read what I wrote. Change in wealth (when offset by inflation) is income. The wealth of the wealthy has been increasing much more than the wealth of the middle class. Therefore their income is higher, in a greater proportion than their wealth.

It is income when it is made LIQUID. Most wealth is not kept this way. Why do you always ignore the main point and try to pick at some piece of ignorance that really isn't there? Also where do you get that definition from because I'd like a source that states that non-liquid assets are income just because inflation occurs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

You seriously think Buffet makes the majority of his income from dividends? Seriously?

The point remains. If Buffett's PERSONAL income tax rate is lower, it is because he has had various facets of his CORPORATION pay it for him in other ways. Perhaps he uses the private jet he leased back to himself. Perhaps they pay the corporate profit rate and on his dividends or perhaps he grants himself stock options at a rate low enough to cover the additional income taxes and lower his effective rate. The point remains that it does not go unpaid but rather a corporation rather than a person is paying it.

The wealthy generally have manageable debt. They can afford to save their income and pay it back while still growing their wealth. This is a way that one becomes wealthy. It is also a way that one increases ones wealth when you become wealthy. It is not the only way, but it is a major way to do it. The non-wealthy need to stop spending so much today and start saving for tomorrow. When retirement gets here they won't be prepared. and that new car and flat screen TV will not seem as great when they cannot enjoy it due to having to work to keep the huge house they bought just to pay the onerous taxes.

I have seen this many times. And it surprised me each and every time.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

You oversimplify and overly blame the nonwealthy. Watch this lecture Elizabeth Warren gave a few months before the housing bubble burst. You'll see that there are significant systemic issues that have led to the problems we see today.

You oversimplify and overly blame the nonwealthy. Watch this lecture Elizabeth Warren gave a few months before the housing bubble burst. You'll see that there are significant systemic issues that have led to the problems we see today.

I may be gerneralizing as I stated, but in too many cases this is how it works. There are other cases as well, I don't dispute that. But your systemic problems are not the only place where the issues come from. Most people don't know how money works, how to maintain wealth, let alone how to grow it. That is why when people who have never had money win a lrge sum it is usually gone in a year or less. They just do what they would always do, buy as much as they can today and do not save for tomorrow. Those that have learned how to manage their finances given that same money in the same financial circumstances will either have it last many more years, or will become financially independent because of the windfall.

That is just one of many circumstances but the underlying issue is one of education with regards to financial matters. And that issue is not being addressed overall as companies have a vested interest in people buying now, not saving for later.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

BR, I had not watched your video before my previous reply and I see where your argument comes from. I agree with a lot of what her research shows. I still think that she misses the parts about financial education. But it was not the point that she was trying to make. with smarter home buying decisions for example you can reduce that portion of your overhead expenses. We put our kids on the schools we want, not just the public schools near us if we need to. We don't buy a home simply to ensure that we are in a good district. That is short-sighted, financially speaking.

Great video. Thanks for posting it. Lots to think over.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

You oversimplify and overly blame the nonwealthy. Watch this lecture Elizabeth Warren gave a few months before the housing bubble burst. You'll see that there are significant systemic issues that have led to the problems we see today.

While she is pretty good at pointing at the problems, and I myself how noted them as well, she has endorsed solutions most liberals won't endorse and if she is endorsing government, fails to see what that the "systemic" problem in all these areas is government.

From Wikipedia related to her book.

Quote:

Warren is also the co-author (with Tyagi) of The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke (Basic, 2003) (ISBN 978-0-465-09090-7). Warren and Tyagi point out that a fully employed worker today earns less inflation-adjusted income than a fully employed worker did 30 years ago. To increase their income, families have sent a second parent into the workforce. Although families spend less today on clothing, appliances, and other consumption, the costs of core expenses like mortgages, health care, transportation, child care, and taxes have increased dramatically. The result is that, even with two income earners, families no longer save and have incurred greater and greater debt.

Her solution to help families that are buying too much house to get away from terrible public schools and the disruptive and near criminal students who fill them, vouchers. The areas of the economic that are becoming unaffordable and untenable are those that the government touches or that are related to dealing with government. You need a bigger mortgage to get the decent public school. You have more expensive health care because the government taxes your income but not when it is paying for health care the plans are inclusive of everything and unaccountable. Transportation costs are going up because we refuse to drill for oil, and are siphoning off monies to pay for exotic green energy fantasies. There is no free lunch and all the utopian policies cost the middle class their savings while paying crony capitalists to pursue utopia and pay the permanent underclass for their votes and to remain a victim and helpless.

In 2007, the top 10% of Americans held 70% of America's wealth and their wealth has been increasing at a faster rate than the bottom 90%, which means their income is more than 70%. You fucking better bet that they deserve to pay at least 70% of America's taxes. Now deduct a standard cost of living from income, and tell me what's left.

It's not misleading at all. It's simply a fact that they pay 60% of the total tax bill. And why is their wealth increasing even part of the discussion? I don't care if their wealth increases faster than mine, because I realize that punishing them doesn't make me any richer. The problem, tonton, is that you're f**king OBSESSED with "income inequality" and wealth redistribution. My God...how in such a LAND OF OPPORTUNITY can we let the rich get richer and the middle class tread water?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.